Hacker News Reader

Comment by colinb | Hacker News Reader

(I think that) Flimsy ~= less likely to fall down in an earthquake. When I moved from Ireland to California I moved into a two storey (1940s?) apartment apparently constructed from drinking straws and toilet paper. But… a few weeks later the area was struck by a significant quake. Part of the freeway fell down. I was woken from sleep by the building swaying and creaking. But it didn’t fall down.

Try your Stockholm apartment in that.

View on HN

This doesn't make sense.

The US can obviously build earthquake-proof concrete and steel skyscrapers, just look at the entire SF downtown. So if you can do that, why wouldn't you be able to build earthquake-proof midrise buildings out of concrete and steel?

When I lived in SF I was woken one night by an earthquake, the entire 42-story high-rise I was living in was swaying back and forth, but obviously didn't collapse.

Sure, I can see how a wooden construction is a cheaper way to make buildings earthquake-proof, but does it really cost that much to earthquake-proof a mid-rise? Or is it not economically feasible to build mid-rises out of anything but wood in the first place?

Well, because midrise buildings hit a horrible resonance with the frequency of earthquakes and are the type of building most at risk, and because those huge skyscrapers have pendulum counterweights, wheels they roll on 100 ft in the ground, and it just costs way too much to use that tech in a smaller building.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com